Canon 35/1.8 or 35/2.0?

[Canonist]

Hello,

I would firstly like to introduce myself. My name is Norbert, I live in Germany and I am 50 years old. After many years with the old Canon F1, I photographed a few years with the Leica M6 and last only digitally with the EOS 5D. Now I have recently a Canon P with 50/1.8 and 100/2.0 bought, because I agree with the digital black-and-white photographs was not entirely satisfied and I also was a rangefinder camera missing.

Now I want to buy a 35/1.8, or a 35/2.0 and I am not sure which of them I should take.

From a nearly 50-year-old lens I do not necessarily expect the imaging performance of modern lenses, but rather a certain "melting" (I do not know exactly how I should express).

What I also want is this: If the Canon 35/2.0 the older Summicron is similar, but very much better in resolution and contrast than the Canon 35/1.8, it would be for me the first choice.
If that 35/1.8 is only slightly more badly, than that 35/2.0, but wide open has a particularly beautiful Bokeh, it would be still better vor me.
Perhaps someone can help me this problem to solve?

Please excuse my bad English.

Best Regards
Norbert



Here is a Picture from the first film with my new old Canon P:

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

I think the 1.8 is a wonderful lens. The 2 is supposed to be a little bit sharper and a little bit more contrasty, but otherwise similar--that's hearsay, though. I don't have it, and don't long for it, having the 1.8.

here are a couple shot on Tri-X. It works great on the R-D1 too.

 

[rlouzan]

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53419

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46658

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25514

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53080

 

[payasam]

Either should meet your needs: although, as mabelsound says, the f/2 is held to be marginally better.

 

[raid]

Hallo Norbert,
You are on the right track with your questions.
"If that 35/1.8 is only slightly more badly, than that 35/2.0, but wide open has a particularly beautiful Bokeh, it would be still better vor me."


Roland has the 1.8 and had the 2.0 Canon 35mm lenses. He disliked the bokeh of the 35/2.0 and he prefers the 35/1.8. I have the 35/1.8, and I like it very much. I also like the Summicron 35/2 version 1.

Your English is fine. In fact, it is far better than most peoples' German here!
(Sie sind wilkommen hier!)

 

[ferider]

Hallo Norbert,

Raid summarized it quite well. The 35/2 is a just little sharper but the OOF behavior of my sample bothered me (I attach a photo I have shown before).

The 35/1.8 flares a little wide open (lower contrast in the dark picture areas), but otherwise is quite sharp and has nice bokeh. Plus I find it better built, it has more metal.

They are both good lenses. At f5.6 and up certainly both good competitors with the later, pre-asph 35/2 Summicron.

Gruss,

Roland.

PS: 35/2 bokeh:

 

[Canonist]

Thank you to all for the answers, links and the welcome.

I think the 35/1.8 is the right thing for me. 🙂

Best Regards
Norbert

 

[David Murphy]

Norbert,

What lens and film type did you use on the P for the river scene? I really like that shot.

 

[Bingley]

Welcome to the forum, Norbert! I've observed from threads here that most members who use the 35/1.8 like it and think it a sweet lens, but opinions are more divided on the 35/2 (some like its sharpness, others dislike its bokeh). Raid's and Roland's posts above support this. Once you find your 35/1.8, please post some photos taken w/ it over at the Canon RF Lens group on flickr, as well as here. 🙂


Roland -- I went looking earlier today for your "First Impressions of Canon P" thread, which had some nice shots taken w/ the 35/1.8, as well as the shot above w/ the 35/2. Couldn't find it. 😱 Has it vanished into cyberspace?

 

[ferider]

Roland -- I went looking earlier today for your "First Impressions of Canon P" thread, which had some nice shots taken w/ the 35/1.8, as well as the shot above w/ the 35/2. Couldn't find it. 😱 Has it vanished into cyberspace?

Hi Steve,

not sure where the thread went .. I might have deleted it myself a while back.

In any case, here are the pics I showed back then (most taken with the 35/1.8):

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/3449038_EVjuU

In the mean-time, with my 35/1.5 experience, I am guessing that the flare that you see in those
pictures might be caused by very minor haze as well ....

Cheers,

Roland.

 

[raid]

Roland,

I also bought a Canon 35mm/1.5 from Chris.
Once I get the lens, I will start exploring its capabilities [again].

 

[raid]

Raid's and Roland's posts above support this. Once you find your 35/1.8, please post some photos taken w/ it over at the Canon RF Lens group on flickr, as well as here. 🙂

Steve,
I have not posted any pics here yet.

 

[raid]

Images taken with the Canon 35mm/1.8 [in Lisboa, Portugal]:

I had the lens cleaned by Eddy Smolov after the trip to Portugal. I find the flare charming, but some may find it horrible looking.

 

[Bingley]

Steve,
I have not posted any pics here yet.

Raid -- I know, but you did post a response to Norbert's OP, and that was what I was referring to. 🙂 Looking forward to seeing some shots from your 35/1.5, and I always enjoy seeing your Lisbon photos taken w/ the 35/1.8!

 

[raid]

Thank you, Steve.
I am looking forward to using the Canon 35/1.5 when I get it.
I haven't sent payment yet. Chris is a nice guy.
Having the 35/1.5 may let me sell one of my other 35mm lenses.
Somehow, I like them all.
The Summicron 35/2 first version is super smooth, while the Canon 35mm/2.8 is tiny and tack sharp. The 35/1.8 is also small and overall very useful to have for trips.

Maybe I will sell my 35mm/1.8.

 

[Bingley]

Having the 35/1.5 may let me sell one of my other 35mm lenses.
Somehow, I like them all.
The Summicron 35/2 first version is super smooth, while the Canon 35mm/2.8 is tiny and tack sharp. The 35/1.8 is also small and overall very useful to have for trips.

Maybe I will sell my 35mm/1.8.

Please, Raid, don't do this to my GAS!!!

 

[Sonnar2]

The 35/1.8 shows more ghost pictures with strong lights (as shown in Raid's pics) and less contrast wide open, but it clears up nicely when stopped down. The 35/2 is better in contrast wide open (sharpness is the same) and, in compensation why it' so pushed, the bokeh is harsher.
At f/5.6 or f/8 both are excellent and no difference in results. After all, both designs are very similar. It's highly a matter of taste (with the appearance as well). Best: have both... 😉
Ask any seller for hazing in both lenses. The 35/1.8 is prone to haze. The 35/2 is lesser prone to spider-web type fungus, which isn't easy to detect because the glass is so small! My 35/1.8 shows a slight haze (I use it nevertheless) whereas the very slight fungus of my 35/2 could luckily be removed without damage.

 

[Canonist]

Norbert,

What lens and film type did you use on the P for the river scene? I really like that shot.

Hello David,

I used the 50/1.8 and a Kodak BW400CN, exposed with ISO 100 for finer grain. My film-scanner is a Minolta Dimage Scan Elite 5400 and I like that shot too. 😀

 

[Canonist]

Once you find your 35/1.8, please post some photos taken w/ it over at the Canon RF Lens group on flickr, as well as here. 🙂

Hello Bingley,

I just registered myself with the username "canonist1958" at the Canon RF Lens group on flickr and I will post some Pics if I got a 35/1.8 lens.

 

[Canonist]

Hello Sonnar2,

I thank you and all here for the advice. It is nice to be here and I hope, my English will get better on this way. 🙂